피드백 전송 재시도

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that no new content is created and already sent reports are not duplicated. It does not mention whether the local queue is cleared after sending, but the main side effects are reasonably transparent given the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the action immediately and then adding relevant clarifications in a compact second sentence. No unnecessary detail or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully explains what the tool does, when it is applicable, and the parameter's meaning. Although there is no output schema, the action-oriented nature of the tool makes the description sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'limit' has a clear description stating the maximum number of items to retry and its default value of 20. This fully covers the parameter's meaning beyond the basic schema type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool resends locally queued feedback (problem reports/feature suggestions) caused by server failures, and explicitly distinguishes it from creating new content or duplicating already sent reports. This makes the core purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related feedback tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly tells when to use the tool: when there is locally queued feedback due to collection server failure. It also clarifies what it does not do (no new content, no duplicates), which helps rule out alternative tools like report_lms_problem or get_feedback_status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.